THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
|
|
- Elizabeth Hunter
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 853/15 In the matter between: ARMSCOR DOCKYARD, a division of ARMSCOR SOC Applicant and CCMA Tariq JAMODIEN N.O. Raynold Thabo NGCOBO First Respondent Second Respondent Third Respondent Heard: 7 September 2016 Delivered: 14 September 2016 Summary: Review LRA s 186(1)(b) legitimate expectation of renewal of fixed term contract. Arbitration award not reviewable. JUDGMENT STEENKAMP J
2 Page 2 Introduction and background [1] Mr Raynold Thabo Ngcobo 1 was employed by the applicant, Armscor, at the Simon s Town naval dockyard as senior human resources manager. Armscor wanted to make a permanent appointment but, as the employee was 59 years old at the time, it would have been too expensive, given the costs of the medical aid scheme and provident fund. The parties found a way out. The employee was employed on a fixed term contract. Armscor s senior employee relations manager, Dr Phasoane Mokgubu, sent the employee an confirming his employment on a fixed term contract for three years which is renewable subject to performance. The employee performed well; but at the end of three years, his contract was not renewed. He referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA 2 in terms of s 186(1)(b) of the LRA. 3 The arbitrator, Tariq Jamodien 4, found that the employee had been dismissed; and that it was unfair. He ordered Armscor to reinstate the employee on a fixed term contract from 1 July 2014 until 31 December Armscor seeks to have the award reviewed and set aside. The arbitration proceedings and award [2] Both parties were legally represented at the arbitration. By agreement, the arbitrator considered the record of a previous arbitration that had been set aside and remitted. He also heard the further evidence of Dr Mokgubu (via video conference) and the General Manager to whom the employee reported, Mr Themba Goduka. [3] The initial fixed term contract was due to expire on 31 March In July 2013 the employee and Goduka started discussing its extension or renewal. On 29 July 2013 Goduka wrote a letter addressed to the acting CEO, Mr JS Mkwanazi. He motivated for the renewal of the contract and recommended its extension for a further three years, when the employee 1 The third respondent. 2 The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (the first respondent). 3 Labour Relations Act 66 of The second respondent.
3 Page 3 would reach retirement age of 65. However, he did not send the letter off and only raised the issue directly with Mr Mkwanazi in December [4] It is not disputed that Goduka supported the employee. It went so far as the employee submitting a draft to Goduka in October 2013 setting out his motivation to extend the contract and highlighting the successes he had achieved during his tenure. It is common cause that the employee performed well. [5] There was no indication to the employee between July 2013 and March 2014 that the renewal of his contract would not be approved. (There is a dispute whether Goduka told him that it was subject to the CEO s approval). Only on 4 March 2014 did Goduka tell him that the CEO refused to renew it because Parliament had insisted on a permanent appointment. Armscor advertised a permanent position on 5 March On the same day, the employee wrote to Goduka and to the general manager: human resources. He noted that Goduka had supported his request for an extension of his contract; that he had submitted his motivation in October 2013; and that he had achieved significant successes. He concluded: I therefore plead that the matter be reconsidered with a view to extend the contract. [6] Goduka responded on 12 March 2014, offering the employee an extension of three months only, until 30 June The employee responded that the offer did not comply with the terms of his contract. He stated (in a letter dated 17 March 2014): The provisions of my fixed term contract of employment create a legitimate expectation that my contract of employment will be renewed on the same or similar terms as set out therein, which includes the period of renewal thereof. [7] Goduka responded on 24 March 2014: In the light of the reasons provided in our letter dated 12 March 2014, Management s decision to appoint a HR manager for the Dockyard on a permanent basis remains highly significant for business. Therefore your fixed term contract which expires on 31 March 2014 can only be extended for three months.
4 Page 4 [8] The arbitrator correctly noted that he had to determine whether the employee had a reasonable expectation of renewal of his fixed term contract; and if so, whether its non-renewal constituted an unfair dismissal. That is consequent upon the provisions of s 186(1)(b)(i) of the LRA: Dismissal means that (b) an employee employed in terms of a fixed term contract of employment reasonably expected the employer (i) to renew a fixed term contract of employment on the same or similar terms but the employer offered to renew it on less favourable terms, or did not renew it. [9] The arbitrator correctly summarised the test to be applied: The view seems to be that the expectation must be reasonable in the objective sense. The question that one has to ask is whether the circumstances were such that any reasonable employee would, in the circumstances, have expected the contract to be renewed on the same or similar terms. [10] He referred to relevant case law against which to assess the evidence before him. In McInnes v Technikon Natal 5 the court adopted the following approach: Here the court has to conduct a two-stage enquiry. The first stage is to determine what the applicant s subjective expectation actually was in relation to renewal. This is a question of fact. Only once the subjective expectation has been established as a fact does the court then go on to decide the second stage, namely whether this expectation was reasonable in the circumstances. As to the former, what is required is that the applicant must subjectively have held the expectation that her contract would be renewed on terms which are the same or similar to the terms which prevailed during her fixedterm contract. [11] The arbitrator also considered Auf der Heyde v University of Cape Town 6 in which the court, in turn referred back to Dierks v University of South Africa 7 : 5 (2000) 21 ILJ 1138 (LC) paras [15] [16].
5 Page 5 The gravamen of s 186(b) in the context of what an employee would be entitled, all other things being equal, reasonably to expect at the conclusion of the specified period of a fixed term contract was examined by this court in Dierks v University of South Africa. The issue for determination in that matter bore a basic similarity, insofar as the interpretation and applicability of s 186(b) of the Act was concerned, to this case Citing Olivier with apparent approval, the court (Oosthuizen AJ), noting that the concept of reasonable expectation as expressed in s 186(b) has no statutory definition, characterised it as including, essentially, an equity criterion, ensuring relief to a party on the basis of fairness in circumstances where the strict principles of law would not foresee a remedy. Whether or not the employee s expectation was reasonable, the court commented, must be deduced on the basis that apart from the subjective say-so or perception there is an objective basis for the creation of his expectation. This must be assessed on an analysis of the facts and relevant circumstances bearing upon it. And in Dierks the court held that the surrounding circumstances must be evaluated, including the significance or otherwise of the contractual stipulation, agreements, undertakings by the employer or practice or custom in regard to renewal or re-employment, the availability of the post, the purpose of or reason for concluding the fixed term contract, inconsistent conduct, failure to give reasonable notice and nature of the employer s business. [12] In summary, the test remains that set out by the LAC in SA Rugby Players Association v SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd: 8 The enquiry is whether a reasonable employee, in the circumstances prevailing at the time, would have expected the employer to renew his or her fixed term contract on the same or similar terms. [13] Applying these principles, the arbitrator took account of the fact that the initial advertisement to which the employee responded envisaged a permanent position. The parties only agreed to a fixed term contract in order to mitigate the impact of the huge financial implications in respect of 6 (2000) 21 ILJ 1758 (LC) para [26]. 7 [1999] 4 BLLR 304 (LC). 8 (2008) 29 ILJ 2218 (LAC) para [44].
6 Page 6 medical aid and provident fund should he have been permanently employed, given his age. That much was confirmed by Goduka. And the arbitrator rejected the belated version of Dr Mokgubu that that employee had to mentor a successor that had never been raised before Mokgubu testified. [14] The arbitrator agreed with Armscor that the fact that the contract was renewable did not amount to a guarantee it merely meant that it was able to be renewed. But, given the assurance in the from Mokgubu that it was renewable subject to performance, he likened it to a suspensive condition performance was the only significant condition set for the possible renewal of the contract. If the employee performed, he was in line to have his contract renewed. He had performed. Goduka supported the renewal of his contract. In those circumstances, he held a subjective expectation of renewal. [15] Goduka confirmed during cross-examination that he had the delegated authority to appoint employees, i.e. to renew the contract; but the arbitrator noted that he also then said that he needed approval from the CEO. The arbitrator accepted, having considered all the evidence, that Goduka, who was the general manager and delegated authority, wanted to exercise the option to renew the contract up to the employee s retirement age at 65. He had communicated this to the employee; what he had not done, is to tell the employee that it was subject to approval by the CEO. Hence from October 2013 (when the employee and Goduka drafted the joint motivation) until March 2014, the employee had reasonably held the expectation that his contract would be renewed. And in any event, given that the contract was renewable subject to performance, the employee had persuasively demonstrated his subjective expectation. Furthermore, the arbitrator found, the employee had met the standard as stated in SA Rugby, i.e. that a reasonable employee, in the circumstances prevailing at the time, would have expected the employer to renew the contract on the same or similar terms. [16] The arbitrator then considered whether the dismissal was fair, or, as he put it, whether or not the employer s reasons for non-renewal were valid.
7 Page 7 [17] The reason given by Goduka was simply that Parliament had questioned the use of fixed term contracts. The arbitrator found that Armscor had taken a unilateral approach to terminate the contract, without considering the peculiarities of the situation. The resultant termination was unfair. [18] As to remedy, the arbitrator took into account that the contract had been renewed for three months. He ordered Armscor to renew it further from 1 July 2014 until 31 December He did not order costs. Review grounds [19] Mr Ackermann, for the applicant, set out five grounds of review, arguing that the arbitrator was wrong on the facts: 19.1 Goduka s support did not lead to a reasonable expectation of renewal The contract itself did not envisage its automatic renewal or a reasonable expectation of renewal Performance was not the only criterion for renewal The arbitrator was wrong in concluding that other criteria were not communicated to the employee Goduka did not have the authority to renew the contract. Evaluation / Analysis [20] As Mr Ackermann correctly submitted, the question whether there was a dismissal in terms of s 186(1)(b) goes to jurisdiction. The test on review is therefore not whether the arbitrator acted reasonably, but whether he was correct in determining that the employee had been dismissed. 9 [21] The onus was on the employee to show that he held a reasonable expectation of renewal. 10 Tlaletsi AJA 11 posited this test to discharge the onus: 9 SA Rugby (above) para [41]. See also Gubevu Security Group (Pty) Ltd v Ruggiero NO and Others [2012] 4 BLLR 354 (LC); (2012) 33 ILJ 1171 (LC). 10 SA Rugby para [44]. 11 (as he then was) in SA Rugby para [44].
8 Page 8 [The employee] had to place facts which, objectively considered, established a reasonable expectation. Because the test is objective, the enquiry is whether a reasonable employee in the circumstances prevailing at the time would have expected the employer to renew his or her fixedterm contract on the same or similar terms. As soon as the other requirements of s 186(1)(b) have been satisfied it would then be found that [the employee] had been dismissed, and [the employer] would have to establish that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair. The first stage: a subjective expectation? [22] The starting point is the wording of the contract itself. It sets out the fixed term period as follows: You are appointed on a 3 year (fixed term, renewable contract) from 1 March 2011 until 31 March [23] It is clear that the parties envisaged a renewable contract. That was amplified in the from Dr Mokgubu to the employee that confirmed: As discussed the offer will be a three year fixed term contract which is renewable subject to performance. [24] I agree with Mr Ackermann that renewable does not mean that the contract would automatically be renewed. But, given that the employee had performed, I agree with the arbitrator that this factor reasonable raised the expectation of renewal with the employee. [25] The employee formed the impression, based on Goduka s assurances and support, that his contract would be renewed. That subjective expectation was bolstered by the common cause fact that he had performed well. It is a similar situation to that in which the employee in a recent private arbitration found herself when her immediate superior assured her that her contract would be renewed but she was then informed by a more senior person that the company had decided against it. 12 [26] It seems clear to me that the employee did subjectively expect his contract to be renewed. Mr Ackermann argued that this is not borne out by his motivation and plea for renewal; but, having motivated why the contract 12 Jossel and Old Mutual Life Assurance Co Ltd (IRC private arbitration award, 29 August 2016).
9 Page 9 should be renewed, the employee was assured of Goduka s support. That could only have bolstered his expectation. The second stage: Was the expectation reasonable? [27] Whether the expectation was reasonable must be assessed in the light of the context and other factors such as those outlined in Dierks. One of the primary factors is the purpose for concluding the fixed term contract in the first place, i.e. that the employee would have been appointed in a permanent position had it not been for his age, that made the cost of the provident fund and medical aid prohibitive. Was the dismissal fair? [28] The arbitrator found that the reasons for non-renewal were not valid. I agree. [29] The only criterion stipulated for renewal was that of performance. The employee met that criterion. In the absence of other valid reasons having been communicated to the employee beforehand, the finding that the dismissal was unfair, is a reasonable one. 13 Specific review grounds on the facts [30] Insofar as the specific review grounds based on the arbitrator s factual findings have not been addressed in the discussion so far, I consider them individually. Goduka s suppport [31] Mr Ackermann argued that, if the employee subjectively believed that the contract would be renewed, he would not have needed to motivate for its renewal. [32] I do not think that the employee adopting a belts and braces approach negates his subjective state of mind. Goduka led him to believe that, since he had performed well, his contract would be renewed once more until he 13 The test for deciding whether there was dismissal is correctness; but, once that has been established, the test on review concerning the arbitrator s finding that the dismissal was unfair, and the appropriate remedy, is the reasonableness test outlined in Sidumo.
10 Page 10 reached retirement age. He assisted Goduka in drafting the motivation. The employee subjectively believed that the renewal would then be a formality, given Goduka s support. That led to a subjective expectation of renewal. The wording of the contract [33] The contract itself states that it is renewable. I agree with Mr Ackermann that that in itself does not imply an automatic renewal, but merely an option to renew. But the contract must be read together with the from Dr Mokgubu containing the offer of employment on a fixed term contract which is renewable subject to performance. That would have raised the reasonable expectation in the mind of the employee that, should he perform satisfactorily, his contract would be renewed. And that expectation was bolstered by Goduka s support. Performance criterion [34] The only criterion for renewal mentioned by Dr Mokgubu in his offer of employment was that of performance. Neither Goduku nor Mokgubu ever raised a different criterion with the employee during the three years that he performed well. And the arbitrator correctly rejected the belated evidence of Dr Mokgubu that the employee was meant to mentor a successor: that version was not put to the employee in cross-examination, it was not raised in any performance discussions with the employee, and there was no evidence that the employee in fact mentored a successor or was expected to do so. Other criteria [35] No other criteria, other than performance, were communicated to the employee. As the arbitrator found, there were no further indications about any other possible reasons which may lead to a renewal and conversely there is no indication in the contract that there is no prospect of renewal or that renewal is dependent upon the operational requirements of the [employer].
11 Page 11 [36] The issue of Parliament wanting Armscor to appoint someone in a permanent position was not raised with the employee until March From July 2013 when Goduka drafted his recommendation for renewal until March 2014, the employee was oblivious of this motivation not to renew coming from outside the employer. It could not have detracted from his reasonable expectation of renewal. [37] The employee s evidence in chief that Goduka did not tell him about the CEO s lack of support in December 2013 went unchallenged in crossexamination. On a balance of probabilities he only learnt of it on 4 March Had Goduka raised it before, either one of them would surely have followed it up in writing. Implied authority [38] Goduka said under cross-examination that he had the authority to appoint, i.e. to renew the contract. He then went on to say that he needed approval from the CEO. But he created the impression in the employee s mind that he had, at the least, ostensible authority. He wanted to exercise the option to renew. I do not think that the arbitrator is wrong when he finds that Goduka adopted the position that renewal was a fait accompli. Conclusion [39] I agree with the arbitrator that the employee formed an expectation that his contract would be renewed; that the expectation was a reasonable one in all the circumstances; and that the failure to renew it on the same or similar terms amounted to a dismissal as defined in s 186(1)(b) of the LRA. I also agree that the dismissal was unfair, given the paucity of reasons for the non-renewal communicated to the employee. And the remedy was a fair and reasonable one. [40] The award is not reviewable. Both parties asked for costs to follow the result. I see no reason in law or fairness to disagree. The employee s renewed fixed term contract will in any event come to an end in three months time, on 31 December 2016.
12 Page 12 Order The application is dismissed with costs. Anton Steenkamp Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa APPEARANCES APPLICANT: Lourens Ackermann Instructed by Bowman Gilfillan Inc. THIRD RESPONDENT: Guy Elliot Instructed by Dorrington Jessop Inc.
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN CAPE TOWN CASE NO: C 277/05. In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN CLOTHING AND TEXTILE WORKER S UNION
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN CAPE TOWN 277/05 CASE NO: C In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN CLOTHING AND TEXTILE WORKER S UNION APPLICANT FIRST J HEYNES SECOND APPLICANT AND CADEMA INDUSTRIES
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NATIONAL ENTITLED WORKERS UNION. NANA KEISHO NO (Case Management of the CCMA)
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN CASE JR 685/02 In the matter between NATIONAL ENTITLED WORKERS UNION Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION First
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: J 1251/13 In the matter between: THE LABOUR GROUP THE PERSONS LISTED ON ANNEXURE A First Applicant Second
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 2026/13 In the matter between: NATIONAL HOME BUILDERS First Applicant REGISTRATION COUNCIL and NEHAWU obo
More informationProposed Changes to the LRA regarding Labour Broking
Proposed Changes to the LRA regarding Labour Broking What the current LRA says Section 198 of the current LRA provides for the following: 1. A definition of who a labour broker worker is works for a client
More informationA CRITIQUE OF THE LEGAL TECHNIQUE OF MANAGING ABSCONDING EMPLOYEES IN SOUTH AFRICA
A CRITIQUE OF THE LEGAL TECHNIQUE OF MANAGING ABSCONDING EMPLOYEES IN SOUTH AFRICA INTRODUCTION South Africa is a constitutional democracy and its constitution contains the Bill of Rights in Chapter 2.
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG EXXARO COAL MPUMALANGA (PTY) LTD MATLA COAL
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case No: JR1288/12 In the matter between: EXXARO COAL MPUMALANGA (PTY) LTD MATLA COAL Applicant And NUM obo STIGLING & ANOTHER First Respondent
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG LTE CONSULTING (PTY) LTD
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable In the matter between: Case no: JR1289/14 LTE CONSULTING (PTY) LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION First Respondent
More informationDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OBO H CILLIERS JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN not reportable Case No: C36/2010 In the matter between: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Applicant And CARLTON JOHNSON N.O. First
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN REASONS FOR THE ORDER BRAVO GROUP MANUFACTURERS (PTY) LTD
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN REASONS FOR THE ORDER Not reportable In the matter between: BRAVO GROUP MANUFACTURERS (PTY) LTD Case no.: D749/2013 Applicant And VINO
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGEMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGEMENT Reportable Case No: JR 738/16 In the matter between: FAMOUS BRANDS MANAGEMENT COMPANY (PTY) LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. SOLIDARITY obo S W PARKINSON
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no. JR2792/12 In the matter between: SOLIDARITY obo S W PARKINSON Applicant and DAMELIN (PTY) LTD COMMISSIONER
More informationARBITRATION AWARD. Panellist: C S Mbileni Case No: PSHS /14 Date of award: 5 August In the ARBITRATION between: and
ARBITRATION AWARD Panellist: C S Mbileni Case No: PSHS1034-13/14 Date of award: 5 August 2014 In the ARBITRATION between: HOSPERSA obo MAKHUBELA Roy V Applicant Party and Department of Health: Mpumalanga
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN Not Reportable ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN Not Reportable Case no: D 285/15 In the matter between: ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY Applicant And IMATU obo R NAIDOO THE SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT BARGAINING
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT PONTSHO BLESSING MOTSHEKGA
1 THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 2245/12 In the matter between: PONTSHO BLESSING MOTSHEKGA Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND
More informationOLGA KOSHEVA AND OTHERS APPLICANT GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FIRST RESPONDENT PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE SECTORBARGAINING COUNCIL THIRD RESPONDENT
1IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: CASE NO: JR 2328/05 OLGA KOSHEVA AND OTHERS APPLICANT AND GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FIRST RESPONDENT MR C S MBILENI N.O
More informationNEHAWU obo NE BOTUANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH- FREE STATE
ARBITRATION AWARD Commissioner: Pieter Venter Case No: PSHS318-18/19 Date of award:14 March 2019 In the matter between: NEHAWU obo NE BOTUANA Applicant and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH- FREE STATE Respondent DETAILS
More informationARBITRATION AWARD IN THE GENERAL
ARBITRATION AWARD IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL BARGAINING COUNCIL Held at Cape Town Commissioner: Jacques Buitendag Case No.: GPBC134/2016 Date of Award: 24 May 2017 In the matter between: NEHAWU
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT PORT ELIZABETH) AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION AND OTHERS First Applicant
Page 1 of 9 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO. P180/05 In the matter between: CHEMICAL, ENERGY, PAPER, PRINTING, WOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION AND OTHERS First Applicant
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Case no: JR 2228-13 Reportable In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION (SAMWU) First Applicant INDEPENDENT MUNICIPAL AND ALLIED WORKERS
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: J 2834/16 J 2845/16 In the matter between: AMCU AMCU MEMBERS First applicant Second and further applicants
More informationRegulated Flexibility: Revisiting the LRA and the BCEA
Regulated Flexibility: Revisiting the LRA and the BCEA DPRU Policy Brief Series Development Policy Research Unit School of Economics University of Cape Town Upper Campus July 2007 PB 07-12 ISBN No: 978-1-920055-48-6
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT. PRETORIA) JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA /ES (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT. PRETORIA) DELETE WHICHEVER»b r (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO. (2) O'- INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: «CASE NO: 42023/09 DATE: gj/o/^o'o (3) REVISED.
More informationDepartment of Health- Northern Cape
ARBITRATION AWARD Case No: PSHS1162-16/17 Commissioner: Gerald Jacobs Date of award: 16 November 2017 In the matter between: NEHAWU obo Themba N and others (Union/ Applicant) and Department of Health-
More informationELRC PRESENTATION ON JURISDICTION
ELRC PRESENTATION ON JURISDICTION 1 In this clause 14, a dispute means any dispute other than a mutual interest dispute that a party must or may elect to refer to the General Secretary in terms of a statute
More informationARBITRATION AWARD. Ananthan Sanjivi Dorasamy. In the ARBITRATION between: HOSPERSA O B O WESTWOOD R (Union / Applicant) and
ARBITRATION AWARD Panellist/s: Case No.: Date of Award: Ananthan Sanjivi Dorasamy PSHS313-11/12 21-Feb-2012 In the ARBITRATION between: HOSPERSA O B O WESTWOOD R (Union / Applicant) and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH:
More informationStay up to date with the latest developments in Labour law EDITION 8/2016. Labour Newsflash
Stay up to date with the latest developments in Labour law EDITION 8/2016 Welcome to the next edition of the Labour Newsflash Labour Newsflash We live in the time of change and innovation. This too has
More informationEMPLOYEE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS DISMISSALS & RESTRUCTURING
EMPLOYEE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS DISMISSALS & RESTRUCTURING What will be covered: 1. Defining and operational requirements dismissal 2. UKZN s employment contractual obligations 3. UKZN s Retrenchment
More informationFIXED TERM EMPLOYEES THE LITTLE USED REGULATIONS?
FIXED TERM EMPLOYEES THE LITTLE USED REGULATIONS? An abridged version of this article appeared in Employment Law Journal December 2004 It has been just over 2 years since the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention
More informationARBITRATION AWARD. Date of Award: 21 st November In the ARBITRATION between: PSA obo Sithole EM (Employee) and
ARBITRATION AWARD Panelist/s: Advocate Ronnie Bracks Case No.: PSHS302-11/12 Date of Award: 21 st November 2011 In the ARBITRATION between: PSA obo Sithole EM (Employee) and Department of Health & Social
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable In the matter between: Case No: JR 214/2016 CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: D1025-17 In the matter between: UNITRANS PASSENGER (PTY) LTD t/a GREYHOUND COUCHLINES Applicant and NUMSA and Members SARPBAC
More informationGUIDE SERIES. An introduction to public law
GUIDE SERIES An introduction to public law The Public Law Project (PLP) is an independent national legal charity. Our mission is to improve public decision-making and facilitate access to justice. We work
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case No JR 2732/2010 In the matter between: MUSTEK LTD Applicant and JOSEPH TSABADI NO First Respondent THE COMMISSION
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: JS 237/15 NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA First Applicant MAMABOLO AND TWO OTHERS Second Applicant and TRANSALLOYS
More informationJELE v PREMIER OF THE PROVINCE OF KWAZULU-NATAL & OTHERS JUDGEMENT
JELE v PREMIER OF THE PROVINCE OF KWAZULU-NATAL & OTHERS FORUM : LABOUR COURT JUDGE : PILLAY J CASE NO : D 1772/01 DATE : 2 MAY 2003 JUDGEMENT Judgment: Pillay J: [1] This review turns on whether the application
More informationStatutory Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures What s All the Fuss About?
October 2004 Statutory Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures What s All the Fuss About? The Employment Act 2002 ( EA ) established a framework for promoting the resolution of employment disputes in the
More informationPanellist/s: Karen Kleinot Case No.: PSCB773-15/16 Date of Award: 13 December In the arbitration between:
ARBITRATION AWARD Panellist/s: Karen Kleinot Case No.: PSCB773-15/16 Date of Award: 13 December 2016 In the arbitration between: PSA obo Smith L M (Union / Applicant) and Department of Economic Development-Gauteng
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN DURBAN CHEMICAL WORKERS INDUSTRIAL UNION. D. D SA & OTHERS Second to thirteenth
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN DURBAN Case no. D 66/99 In the matter between: CHEMICAL WORKERS INDUSTRIAL UNION Applicant D. D SA & OTHERS Second to thirteenth Applicant AND SASOL FIBRES (PTY)
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] The applicant, the Public Servants Association (PSA) on behalf of its member,
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR 388/07 In the matter between: PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OF SA OBO P W J DE BRUYN APPLICANT AND MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY 1 ST
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN Not Reportable Case no: C 27/15 In the matter between: MALEBYE URIA TABANE Applicant and I DE VLIEGER-SEYNHAEVE N.O THE PUBLIC SERVICE CO-ORDINATING BARGAINING
More informationAcas consultation. on the revision of paragraphs 15 and 36 of the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
Acas consultation on the revision of paragraphs 15 and 36 of the Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures December 2013 Acas consultation on the revision of paragraphs 15 and 36 of
More informationREPEAL OF THE DISCIPLINARY RULES MADE UNDER THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' AND AUDITORS' ACT, 80 OF 1991 AND ADOPTION OF
REPEAL OF THE DISCIPLINARY RULES MADE UNDER THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS' AND AUDITORS' ACT, 80 OF 1991 AND ADOPTION OF NEW DISCIPLINARY RULES ON 7 JUNE 2007 Having published its intention to do so for comment
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT TIGER FOODS BRAND LIMITED
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable J2790/13 In the matter between: KLAAS KGOTONG MABALA Applicant And TIGER FOODS BRAND LIMITED Respondent
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN. NEHAWU obo ABRAHAM SMITH
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN Not reportable Case no: C61/2017 In the matter between: NEHAWU obo ABRAHAM SMITH Applicant and PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SECTORAL BARGAINING COUNCIL
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT SOLIDARITY OBO LABUSCHAGNE
1 THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JS 732/11 Not Reportable In the matter between: SOLIDARITY OBO LABUSCHAGNE Applicant And COMMISSIONER OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES
More informationJR169/08/IB/CD 1 JUDGMENT DATE HEARD AND DELIVERED 11 MAY 2010 EDITED 10 JUNE 2010 PPC JUPITER (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT
JR169/08/IB/CD 1 JUDGMENT CASE NO JR169/08 In the matter between: DATE HEARD AND DELIVERED 11 MAY EDITED JUNE NOT REPORTABLE PPC JUPITER (PTY) LTD APPLICANT And THE COMMISSIONER FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION
More informationEMPLOYMENT TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SERVICES GUIDELINE
EMPLOYMENT TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SERVICES GUIDELINE AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR renders the service itself AND DOES NOT PROVIDE LABOUR TO ANOTHER TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SERVICES AND THE LAW Temporary employment
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTHN AFRICA. In the matter between: Case no JR 832/07 SOUTH AFRICAN POST OFFICE
HELD AT JOHANNESBURG IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTHN AFRICA In the matter between: Case no JR 832/07 SOUTH AFRICAN POST OFFICE APPLICANT LIMITED And G S JANSEN VAN VUUREN N.O 1 ST RESPONDENT COMMISSION FOR
More informationAbbreviations/ Acronyms
LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT NO 6 OF 2014 Prepared by CLSO BC: CCMA: ESC: LAC: Abbreviations/ Acronyms Bargaining Council Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration Essential Services Commission
More informationINTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG. Case. No: JS 1480/01. In the matter between YVETTE BIGGS. Applicant.
INTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG No: JS 1480/01 Case In the matter between YVETTE BIGGS Applicant and RAND WATER Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT REVELAS, J. The applicant, Yvette
More informationCollective agreements
XIVth Meeting of European Labour Court Judges 4 September 2006 Cour de cassation Paris SWEDEN Collective agreements Swedish reporters: Judge Carina Gunnarsson, Judge Cathrine Lilja Hansson and Judge Inga
More informationNOTICE 602 OF (Govenrment Gazette 34573) CCMA GUIDELINES: MISCONDUCT ARBITRATIONS GUIDELINES ON MISCONDUCT ARBITRATIONS
NOTICE 602 OF 2011 (Govenrment Gazette 34573) CCMA GUIDELINES: MISCONDUCT ARBITRATIONS GUIDELINES ON MISCONDUCT ARBITRATIONS PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION IN TERMS
More informationDear members. Time for an update again.
Dear members Time for an update again. LABOUR COURT The Executive shares the members concern about the delay with a judgement in this matter but we assure you that as soon as we hear, the outcome will
More informationSTAATSKOERANT, 2 SEPTEMBER 2011 No GENERAL NOTICE NOTICE 602 OF 2011 CCMA GUIDELINES: MISCONDUCT ARBITRATIONS
STAATSKOERANT, 2 SEPTEMBER 2011 No.34573 3 GENERAL NOTICE NOTICE 602 OF 2011 GUIDELINES ON MISCONDUCT ARBITRATIONS PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION IN TERMS OF SECTION
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT SAKHEKILE VEZI MAKALIMA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JS 176/09 In the matter between: SAKHEKILE VEZI MAKALIMA Applicant and EDU-LOAN (PTY) LTD Respondent
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG)
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) In the matter between: Case No.: J 2328/05 PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA (PSA) Applicant and SAFETY & SECURITY SECTORIAL First Respondent
More informationChaskalson P, Langa DP, Ackermann J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J, Du Plessis AJA and Skweyiya AJ
1 of 5 2012/11/06 11:57 AM MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS v LIEBENBERG 2002 (1) SA 33 (CC) 2002 (1) SA p33 Citation 2002 (1) SA 33 (CC) Case No CCT 22/01 Court Constitutional Court Judge Chaskalson P, Langa
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Not Reportable Case no: JS79114 SOUTHERN AFRICAN CLOTHING AND TEXTILE WORKERS UNION First Applicant MAGGIE MALALA Second Applicant
More informationTime scales have been fixed to ensure that grievances are dealt with quickly, however these may be extended if it is agreed upon by both parties.
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE The grievance procedure is intended as the tool by which a member of staff may formally have a grievance, regarding any condition of their employment, heard by the management of the
More informationGuidance on the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 and associated provisions in the Employment Act 2002
Guidance on the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 and associated provisions in the Employment Act 2002 CONTENTS Chapter 1 - Introduction...1 Chapter 2 - Dismissal and disciplinary
More informationTo: The Chief Executives of Education and Training Boards
To: The Chief Executives of Education and Training Boards Circular Letter 0065/2017 PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES (FIXED-TERM WORK) ACT 2003 IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF TUTORS EMPLOYED BY EDUCATION
More informationSB GERICKE PER / PELJ 2011(14)1
A NEW LOOK AT THE OLD PROBLEM OF A REASONABLE EXPECTATION: THE REASONABLENESS OF REPEATED RENEWALS OF FIXED-TERM CONTRACTS AS OPPOSED TO INDEFINITE EMPLOYMENT 1 Introduction SB Gericke The fixed-term contract
More informationWhat Is Labour Law? by N. Gawa
Dr. L. Madhuku generally says law refers to rules/regulations which govern human conduct or other societal relations and is enforceable by the state. He emphasizes that it is the quality of enforceability
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT. BIDVEST DATA (PTY) LTD And STATUTORY COUNCIL, PRINTING,
.1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Not Reportable C932/2013 In the matter between: BIDVEST DATA (PTY) LTD Applicant And STATUTORY COUNCIL, PRINTING, NEWSPAPER
More informationFIXED TERM CONTRACTS
FIXED TERM CONTRACTS Document Status: Version: Approved V1 DOCUMENT CHANGE HISTORY Version Date Comments (ie. viewed, or reviewed, amended, approved by person or committee Approved 19-Sep-2006 Transition
More informationAdvice on the NUT and NASUWT industrial action
Advice on the NUT and NASUWT industrial action December 2012 Summary About this departmental advice This is advice from the Department for Education. This advice is non-statutory and answers a number of
More informationCERTIFIED SPECIALIST PROGRAM LABOUR LAW DEVELOPMENTAL PHASES AND LEARNING CRITERIA
CERTIFIED SPECIALIST PROGRAM LABOUR LAW DEVELOPMENTAL PHASES AND LEARNING CRITERIA PART I: CORE LABOUR LAW KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS (from Labour Law Experience: Standards for Certification as a Labour Law
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: JR 686 /2015 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN CLOTHING AND TEXTILE WORKERS UNION ALFRED LETIMELA RONNIE APOLS First Applicant Second
More informationANALYSING THE ONUS ISSUE IN DISMISSALS EMANATING FROM THE ENFORCEMENT OF UNILATERAL CHANGES TO CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ISSN
Author: R Ismail and I Tshoose ANALYSING THE ONUS ISSUE IN DISMISSALS EMANATING FROM THE ENFORCEMENT OF UNILATERAL CHANGES TO CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ISSN 1727-3781 2011 VOLUME 14 No 7 http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v14i7.6
More informationUNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ) David Wynn and ) Oakland, NJ A94N-4A-C NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER ) CARRIERS, AFL-CIO )
In the Matter of the National Arbitration Between UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ) David Wynn and ) Oakland, NJ A94N-4A-C 99059170 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER ) CARRIERS, AFL-CIO ) Before: Dennis R. Nolan,
More informationEMPLOYMENT RETRENCHMENT GUIDELINE
EMPLOYMENT RETRENCHMENT GUIDELINE CONSULTATIONS WITH TRADE UNIONS MUST TAKE PLACE WHERE APPLICABLE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS A MAJORITY TRADE UNION RETRENCHMENT FAQS CONSULTATION WHAT ARE THE CATEGORIES
More informationIntroduction Guidelines in cases of dismissal for misconduct: Item 7 of the Code
CCMA GUIDELINES: MISCONDUCT ARBITRATIONS PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 115(2)(g) OF THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1995 (ACT NO. 66 OF 1995) TO
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. JDG TRADING (PTY LTD t/a SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Not reportable Case No: JR958/16 JDG TRADING (PTY LTD t/a SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES Applicant and MYHILL, E L N.O First Respondent
More informationFIXED TERM CONTRACT POLICY. Recruitment and Selection Policy Secondment Policy. Employment Policy. Officer / CSP
FIXED TERM CONTRACT POLICY Reference No: UHB 173 Version No: 2 Previous Trust / LHB Ref No: T 297 Documents to read alongside this Policy Recruitment and Selection Policy Secondment Policy Redeployment
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN Reportable Case No: D1256/13 In the matter between: PECTON OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS CC and
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN Reportable Case No: D1256/13 In the matter between: PECTON OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS CC and PILLEMER, B N.O. CCMA THULASIZWE SHOZI & 205 OTHERS Applicant
More informationCASE NO: J 472/06. (SATAWU) Applicant JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG REVISED JUDGMENT (30/06/ 2006) CASE NO: J 472/06 In the matter between: S A Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) Applicant and Natro Fright
More informationLABOUR LAW. ARR 214 Theme 9
LABOUR LAW ARR 214 Theme 9 THEME 9 I N D I V I D U A L L A B O U R D I S P U T E S : U N F A I R L A B O U R P R A C T I C E S P G L ( 2 0 0 6 : 3 0 1-3 1 8 ) ; W L ( 2 0 0 9 : 7 3-9 2 ) ; P L L ( 2 0
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: 1834/ 2011 VDZ CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: 1834/ 2011 In the matter between: VDZ CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD Applicant and MAKANA MUNICIPALITY First Respondent THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER,
More informationRemuneration and Nominations Committee Terms of Reference NOTE: THESE TERMS OF REFERENCE HAVE BEEN ALIGNED TO THE KING IV RECOMMENDATIONS.
Remuneration and Nominations Committee Terms of Reference NOTE: THESE TERMS OF REFERENCE HAVE BEEN ALIGNED TO THE KING IV RECOMMENDATIONS. August 2018 1. INTRODUCTION These Terms of Reference have been
More information1March Reviewing Fixed-term Contracts. Section 1: Employee Application for a Permanent Contract
HR Code of Practice 6. Reviewing Fixed-term Contracts Section : Employee Application for a Permanent Contract. Preamble 2. Aim of this section 3. Key points 4. Outline of the procedure 5. Timescales 6.
More informationJersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal
Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal Making a complaint under Part 5A of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003: Ante-Natal, Maternity, Adoption and Parental Leave Please read this leaflet if you are
More informationTalita Laubscher BIur LLB (UFS) LLM (Emory University USA) is an attorney at Bowman Gilfillan in Johannesburg.
Employment law update Talita Laubscher BIur LLB (UFS) LLM (Emory University USA) is an attorney at Bowman Gilfillan in Johannesburg. Monique Jefferson BA (Wits) LLB (Rhodes) is an attorney at Bowman Gilfillan
More informationEMPLOYMENT CONTRACT GUIDE FOR PROFESSORS
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT GUIDE FOR PROFESSORS An employment relationship is based on an employment contract, which states that one party (the employee) will work for a salary or other compensation for and under
More informationLabour Law Amendments RESOURCE GUIDE
Labour Law Amendments RESOURCE GUIDE March 2016 COPYRIGHT Unless otherwise indicated, copyright in this material vests in the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration. No part of this material
More informationUnfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2001
Explanatory Booklet for Employers and Employees Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2001 Explanatory Booklet This book is intended to give a general guidance to employers and employees about the Unfair Dismissals
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT. Information note
2013/3 AGENDA ITEM 10.1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT Information note Subject: Handling of notifications in the context of the flexibility provisions under Articles
More informationCORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES (Effective May 18, 2018) I. INTRODUCTION The Board of Directors (the Board ) of CBRE Group, Inc. (the Company ) has adopted these corporate governance guidelines to promote
More informationMODEL STAFFING REVIEW & REDUNDANCY PROCEDURE
MODEL STAFFING REVIEW & REDUNDANCY PROCEDURE Background 1. Scope This procedure shall apply to all employees employed by the Governing Body of Catholic Voluntary Aided School. 1. Definition of Redundancy
More informationUpdate. MCW In-Focus. Franchising MARCH Unhappy franchisees are not always successful when bringing claims
Update MCW In-Focus Franchising MARCH 2014 Unhappy franchisees are not always successful when bringing claims By Alicia Hill Principal T 07 3231 0607 E ahill@mcw.com.au Ann-Marie Coleman Law Clerk T 07
More informationKing III Chapter 2 The Social and Ethics Committee. November 2011
Chapter 2 The Social and Ethics Committee November 2011 The information contained in this Practice Note is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN. JURY JOHANNES MINNY Joint applicants and BURKHARD GOTTSMANN. SMART PLAN CC Respondent JUDGMENT
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN Case no: D14/07 and D15/07 Reportable In the matters between: JURY JOHANNES MINNY Joint applicants and BURKHARD GOTTSMANN and SMART PLAN CC Respondent
More informationunfair dismissal and redundancy
Unite Legal Services Summary of the law on unfair dismissal and redundancy www.unitetheunion.org 2 Contents About this booklet 3 Unfair dismissal? 3 What about strikes and lock outs? 5 What is the procedure
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT JOHANNESBURG STOCK EXCHANGE LTD
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JS 398 / 15 In the matter between: RISMA VILJOEN Applicant and JOHANNESBURG STOCK EXCHANGE LTD Respondent Heard: 8, 9, 10 and
More informationUniversity of Cape Town
Jan Harm Venter VNTJAN006 MPhil (Labour Law) 5614W THE LAW OF RETRENCHMENT: S 189A FACILITATION The impact of facilitation in large scale retrenchments. Supervisor: A/Professor Debbie Collier Word Count:
More informationHow to protect your school against employment claims
How to protect your school against employment claims It goes without saying that employment disputes can be both disruptive and costly. This short guide provides some useful advice to help your school
More informationENTERPRISE BARGAINING PREPARATION & COMMENCEMENT (NSE)
General Guidance Notes Enterprise Bargaining Preparation & Commencement (National System Employers) These notes apply to national system employers who are governed by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ( Act
More informationEXPLANATION: SECTION 198 AMENDMENTS
EXPLANATION: SECTION 198 AMENDMENTS Clause 37 Clause 37 of the Bill seeks to amend section 198 of the Act in order to effectively address certain problems and abusive practices associated with temporary
More informationSection 64(1)(b) of the Labour
Vol. 22 No. 5 December 2012 Giving notice of strike action Constitutional Court splits in affirming a wider interpretation by P.A.K. le Roux Section 64(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 (LRA)
More information